Thread: Palin's Choice for VP

Originally Posted by DavidM

Uh....unless I am mistaken, Barak Obama ran for a uncontested senate seat, has never written any significant law..........and two years later he feels qualified to be the PRESIDENT?

Look, I appreciate it if you simply disagree with the guy, but this response tells me nothing. Can you answer the points I made above? Do you believe that only Washington insiders should be president?

The guy has lots of experience at lots of things, he's proven himself to be highly effective, especially in the political arena, and he's a thoughtful, brilliant guy who communicates extremely well. Can you argue with that?

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Look, I appreciate it if you simply disagree with the guy, but this response tells me nothing. Can you answer the points I made above? Do you believe that only Washington insiders should be president?

The guy has lots of experience at lots of things, he's proven himself to be highly effective, especially in the political arena, and he's a thoughtful, brilliant guy who communicates extremely well. Can you argue with that?

j

And yet Palin, who has "lots of experience at lots of things", isn't qualified? Obama was trounced when he ran in 2000 for the Il State Senate. Any bill he has written/sponsored, has never been passed. He has voted "Present" when ever there has been a tough vote in the US Senate. Obama has a lot of experience being a candidate, because that is what he has done for longer than he has held any office. Additionally, every Democrat should be peeved because when he was elected to the US Senate, he assured Illinois and the Party that he would not run for President in 2008.

I take it we're not talking about Michael Palin?

He could make a good VP. He's travelled a lot.

Originally Posted by denmason

McCain has underestimated women's intelligence and will lose their vote.

Never underestimate the stupidity of morons.
(not to say that all women or all conservatives are morons, just implying that those who like this pick for VP look suspicious)

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

... no one's suggesting she's got the experience to be a heart beat away from being President.

Shouldn't we say "heart stop"? I think it'd be more accurate.

Originally Posted by kmag

Anyone who thinks we have anyone left-wing running for office doesn't know what the word means.

Oh yeah!? And what would you in Seattle know about the left wing, huh? HUH!?

X

OK I will respond

Lots of people communicate really well, are men of the people, and are not Washington insiders. The last one to be President was Jimmy Carter who was one of the most abismal presidents in history. I know some people love the man and that he is a nice person but he was a terrible president and I will provide examples if you want but I don't want to hijack this thread into what Carter did wrong.

Barack was a community organizer which is not an elected position and has no bearing on being president. Now I will suggest that it shows a certain amount of leadership and a dedication to a cause, though they have not said what cause he was organizing for, but I am on the board of my local chamber of commerce and do many of the same things for the purpose of furthing local business and you don't see me claiming to be presidential material.

He was a college professor. So was Condeleeza Rice. Infact, she is tenured at Stanford and was their Provost for some time and you folks hate her. I remember my professor of system dynamics... he used to walk around mumbling to himself and telling jokes with no punchline. The man was just like Milton in office space. Or how about my english professor who used to sleep with his students or the law professor who held his office hours at the local pub? These are not the sort of people who I would want running anything. Being a professor by itself is not a qualification for any sort of job because being a professor isolates you from reality. College campuses are special places where thought can exist without the need for usefullness or practicality. There are tons of people who would never survive in the real world because of the shelter that universities provide. May I remind you that the founders of the Weatherman and Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that FBI files show are responsible for riots, 25 bombings of police military and civilians, and for being directly trained in Havana Cuba by the KGB, are currently college professors. Not only that but Bill Ayers is a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is connected to Obama, Mark Rudd is a math professor at a community college in New Mexico and HE SPOKE AT THE RESURECTION CITY AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AT A KEY NOTE SPEAKER, and Bernadine Dohrn who is a board member of the ACLU and is a professor of Law at Northwestern! These are the professors that the democratic party look to. They are terrorists who have officially declared war against America at its Flint Council in 1969. Not only that but they have reconsitituded the SDS which was the base organization for the Weatherman and Mark Rudd states that he doesn't think they did anythign wrong when they bombed the pentagon, the capitol, the Washington police headquarters or attempted to bomb a military dance with hundreds of GI's. Did I mention that Bill Ayers is connected to Obama and that Mark Rudd was a keynote speaker at once of the Conventions major events?

State Senator then? Well if you won't concede being a governor as being experience then i won't even dignify that one with a wordy response. Not to mention that if Big spendor is to be believed, state governments are the political equivalent of the PTA! Personally I don't believe this but I'm not the one who said it was invalid to be a governor when it came to experience.

As for the US senate. That is good experience. However I would suggest that Barrack seemed to like to sleep in. Here is a full list of his missed votes. Missed Votes by Barack Obama | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com And that is just the most recent congress. Look at the bottom for his older votes when he was not campaigning. Barrack has one of the most significant NON-Voting records in the senate. He can't gain experience if he is not there.

And even if he could, the star of the ticket gets his appeal by a force of personality not by ability. McCain is a proven entity and so is Biden. Your ticket should read Hillary Obama or Biden Obama to be reasonable. If you don't like Palin then that if fine but you need to be teachable and able to bring in votes to be a decent VP. You need to be presidential to be president. Obama talks a top game but is not a quality pick. Hey I might have voted for a Clinton ticket so don't think i am not inflexible. I am just informed. But I cannot in conscience choose Obama. Biden gets on my nerves because his speeches to people seem to be condescending and I don't want to talked down to for 4 to 8 years despite any politics. McCain works across the isle and made Bush crazy for a while by not playing ball with his policy. And Palin may be the closest thing to an honest person that Washington will ever see!

There is alot more politics to it but in a nutshell that is what it comes down too.

Oh and one last thought. How does a middle class professor go from the bottom of a political organization being in contention for the top post in about a decade when people like biden serve at its top posts for 20 to 30 years before being ready to run for the top offices? They simply don't unless someone powerful wants them too from early on. Sarah Palin has John McCain to thank for her sudden rise. I would really like to know who had Obama Speaking as a Key Note Speaker at the DNC right after he got elected... That is unheard of. Who ever is responsible for that is the one responsible for his rise and then will be the one Obama owes the most favor to once elected.

Originally Posted by Eismann

And yet Palin, who has "lots of experience at lots of things", isn't qualified? Obama was trounced when he ran in 2000 for the Il State Senate. Any bill he has written/sponsored, has never been passed. He has voted "Present" when ever there has been a tough vote in the US Senate. Obama has a lot of experience being a candidate, because that is what he has done for longer than he has held any office. Additionally, every Democrat should be peeved because when he was elected to the US Senate, he assured Illinois and the Party that he would not run for President in 2008.

I never commented on Palin's experience, other than to opine that it was her demographics that got her selected, and that she probably wasn't McCain's own choice.

The selection process for candidates is a competitive one. Being "peeved" over the result is an exercise in futility.

Obama voted "present" in cases when the vote was symbolic and he didn't want to participate in the symbolism. That's a pretty common tactic in the Senate -- to propose a hot-button issue just to create damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choices for legislators. Then, no matter how they vote, you can come back and say, "See?" As a candidate, Obama wisely avoided these votes.

j

Originally Posted by The Topher

OK I will respond

Lots of people communicate really well, are men of the people, and are not Washington insiders. The last one to be President was Jimmy Carter who was one of the most abismal presidents in history. I know some people love the man and that he is a nice person but he was a terrible president and I will provide examples if you want but I don't want to hijack this thread into what Carter did wrong.

The last Washington outsider with good communications skills to be elected president was Ronald Reagan.

Originally Posted by The Topher

Barack was a community organizer which is not an elected position and has no bearing on being president. Now I will suggest that it shows a certain amount of leadership and a dedication to a cause, though they have not said what cause he was organizing for, but I am on the board of my local chamber of commerce and do many of the same things for the purpose of furthing local business and you don't see me claiming to be presidential material.

In other words, only Washington experience counts? Why not just acknowledge that you insist on an insider?

Originally Posted by The Topher

He was a college professor. So was Condeleeza Rice. Infact, she is tenured at Stanford and was their Provost for some time and you folks hate her. I remember my professor of system dynamics... he used to walk around mumbling to himself and telling jokes with no punchline. The man was just like Milton in office space. Or how about my english professor who used to sleep with his students or the law professor who held his office hours at the local pub? These are not the sort of people who I would want running anything. Being a professor by itself is not a qualification for any sort of job because being a professor isolates you from reality. College campuses are special places where thought can exist without the need for usefullness or practicality. There are tons of people who would never survive in the real world because of the shelter that universities provide. May I remind you that the founders of the Weatherman and Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that FBI files show are responsible for riots, 25 bombings of police military and civilians, and for being directly trained in Havana Cuba by the KGB, are currently college professors. Not only that but Bill Ayers is a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is connected to Obama, Mark Rudd is a math professor at a community college in New Mexico and HE SPOKE AT THE RESURECTION CITY AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AT A KEY NOTE SPEAKER, and Bernadine Dohrn who is a board member of the ACLU and is a professor of Law at Northwestern! These are the professors that the democratic party look to. They are terrorists who have officially declared war against America at its Flint Council in 1969. Not only that but they have reconsitituded the SDS which was the base organization for the Weatherman and Mark Rudd states that he doesn't think they did anythign wrong when they bombed the pentagon, the capitol, the Washington police headquarters or attempted to bomb a military dance with hundreds of GI's. Did I mention that Bill Ayers is connected to Obama and that Mark Rudd was a keynote speaker at once of the Conventions major events?

I fail to see what bearing your nutty English professor has on Obama? This is a false compariosn. Check Obama's course outlines. They were very thoughtful.

Originally Posted by The Topher

State Senator then? Well if you won't concede being a governor as being experience then i won't even dignify that one with a wordy response. Not to mention that if Big spendor is to be believed, state governments are the political equivalent of the PTA! Personally I don't believe this but I'm not the one who said it was invalid to be a governor when it came to experience.

I never said anything about what experience as governor counts as. Don't put words in my mouth (my foot's already there, no?). Obviously, this is a concern for you, since you keep mentioning it without any prompting from me.

Originally Posted by The Topher

As for the US senate. That is good experience. However I would suggest that Barrack seemed to like to sleep in. Here is a full list of his missed votes. Missed Votes by Barack Obama | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com And that is just the most recent congress. Look at the bottom for his older votes when he was not campaigning. Barrack has one of the most significant NON-Voting records in the senate. He can't gain experience if he is not there.

See my response above.

Originally Posted by The Topher

And even if he could, the star of the ticket gets his appeal by a force of personality not by ability. McCain is a proven entity and so is Biden. Your ticket should read Hillary Obama or Biden Obama to be reasonable. If you don't like Palin then that if fine but you need to be teachable and able to bring in votes to be a decent VP. You need to be presidential to be president. Obama talks a top game but is not a quality pick. Hey I might have voted for a Clinton ticket so don't think i am not inflexible. I am just informed. But I cannot in conscience choose Obama. Biden gets on my nerves because his speeches to people seem to be condescending and I don't want to talked down to for 4 to 8 years despite any politics. McCain works across the isle and made Bush crazy for a while by not playing ball with his policy. And Palin may be the closest thing to an honest person that Washington will ever see!

There is alot more politics to it but in a nutshell that is what it comes down too.

Oh and one last thought. How does a middle class professor go from the bottom of a political organization being in contention for the top post in about a decade when people like biden serve at its top posts for 20 to 30 years before being ready to run for the top offices? They simply don't unless someone powerful wants them too from early on. Sarah Palin has John McCain to thank for her sudden rise. I would really like to know who had Obama Speaking as a Key Note Speaker at the DNC right after he got elected... That is unheard of. Who ever is responsible for that is the one responsible for his rise and then will be the one Obama owes the most favor to once elected.

Whoever Palin has to thank, I sincerely doubt it's McCain. She was not his choice. As for Obama? Lots of people are chosen as keynote speaker. It's by the party leadership.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt Palin's honesty. That poor state trooper who was married to her sister might have something to say about it. And why do you think Obama's not honest?

Hope I've answered your concerns. Mainly, I'd invite you to stop putting words in my mouth.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I never commented on Palin's experience, other than to opine that it was her demographics that got her selected, and that she probably wasn't McCain's own choice.

The selection process for candidates is a competitive one. Being "peeved" over the result is an exercise in futility.

Obama voted "present" in cases when the vote was symbolic and he didn't want to participate in the symbolism. That's a pretty common tactic in the Senate -- to propose a hot-button issue just to create damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choices for legislators. Then, no matter how they vote, you can come back and say, "See?" As a candidate, Obama wisely avoided these votes.

j

You are correct, you didn't comment on her experience, I misread your post.

Having lived in The People's Republic of Illinois, I have seen first hand how much Obama has done nothing to more our state forward. As much as I can't stand Dick Durbin, he at least expresses his position on an issue. An ambiguous call for "Change" with no outline other than, "We need change", is going to leave only that in all of our pockets.

God, I love political arguements!!!!!

Originally Posted by Eismann

You are correct, you didn't comment on her experience, I misread your post.

Having lived in The People's Republic of Illinois, I have seen first hand how much Obama has done nothing to more our state forward. As much as I can't stand Dick Durbin, he at least expresses his position on an issue. An ambiguous call for "Change" with no outline other than, "We need change", is going to leave only that in all of our pockets.

I understand what you're saying, but will tell you that it ain't easy to get things through the legislature -- either here or in Springfield. It's also wise to bear that in mind when presidential candidates promise what they'll "do" as president.

I like Obama mainly because I've read his writings and he appears to be a smart, balanced individual. He's big on personal responsibility and has little patience for the posturing we find in government. For example, he complains that the debate in education has resolved down to a false choice between those who would dismantle public education, and those who claim it needs more money but who have no intention of saying how that money would be used. He's made similar statements on many issues.

The only thing we'll know about how someone would govern is what he values, because no matter who it is, they still have to get the agenda through Congress. In that context, Obama doesn't look so bad.

I'd suggest reading some of his writing. He's an interesting guy.

j